http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/04/opinion/gergen-zuckerman-walker/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

This article brought it up again.  In Wisconsin, every public sector union, EXCEPT for fire fighters and police, are subject to strong limitations on what they can do.  Pretty much, they don't have anything to do, outside of sign whatever contract is handed their way.  Fire fighters and police are exempted?  If unions are that horrible and budget breaking, why wouldn't police and fire fighter unions also fit here?

Is it me, or is this merely a political ploy done, so that the Republican side can get enough votes to stay into power, and not tick off everyone?  Does putting one's life at risk make one more worthy of having the ability to negotiate at a table?  

So, is it merely political for this, or am I missing something?

It's totally true. Nobody wants to seem like they're anti-police, and especially not anti-fire-fighter, so what you get is favoritism and a nice bit of transparency for Walker's rampant, quasi-legal union-busting.

It's simply because police officers and firefighters tend to vote Republican. :/

I find that interesting that there would be a selective application of anti-unionism when you do that, like some deserve unions, while others don't?  What I don't get is how dislike for unions can be selectively applied like this.

Another thing I don't get is the spin how there is talk of wanting to liberate workers from their union bosses, because, unlike private sector, the union members vote for their bosses.

I'd think it was a case of votes too....

ALTHOUGH, the argument that's conveniently being ignored is that Police and Firefighters are different from other unions. These two groups are outright risking their lives to save lives at their jobs and therefore deserve a lot more consideration then your average worker.

It's worth noting even FDR was against government unions.

This is actually the PERFECT example as to one of why public sector unions are arguably corrosive. At that point, public sector unions become a voters block to bribe through "collective bargaining."

They are no longer really selling there skills. But their votes.

Local unions often tend to change local politicians pretty eaisly based on who promises them the most... and that's tons of votes.  Of course you could argue that's any union... but never is it so direct then public unions.

I mean, Imagine if Obama or Romeny were head of their own company and more or less said... "If I become President, you'll get a raise."

While generaly pro union, I really do think government unions cause more problems then they solve, such things being adequete to handle in party platforms and votes by the public.

Now if the publics vote that they want to handle it via unions.  (Like say Ohio did last november.) all the more power to them.

Also, you'd be surprised in regards to unions. A lot of the problem with your lower grade unions is there is no choice.

I know a huge number of people that wish they could get out of their union for example in supermarkets because after paying dues they make less then non union supermarkets... any benefits you get outside of pay don't tend to invest unless you are there 8+ years and protection rarely pans out. Companies winning in the case of "he said she said" arguments.

Unless your a "big" union chances are your building a large portion of your union on people that don't plan to be at those jobs too long/get fired/shit happens. Because you don't have enough influence/your labor isn't worth enough to get the whole package. So those in power, who usually end up being the older career guys tilt it towards themselves. (often written in rules you have to be there so many years to even run).

I have to wonder about government. Governments are ones who passed laws to draft people, which means enslave them for X years of public servitude, using coercion to get them to comply to go to war. Slaves built monuments under government rule. This drafting happened even when you had democratically elected government at work. If the public will is willing to enslave people in terms of the greater good, and put them in internment camps, why would anyone who works for them trust them to be decent employers without there being a contract?

So the question is: What makes government such a superior employer that it wouldn't end up being worse than private sector employers? Those who argue that public sector employees shouldn't have unions, but private sector employees can have them, are arguing this. Can you explain if you hold this view, or can you come out flat now and explain that you actually believe that there shouldn't be unions period?

It's not that governments are superior employers so much as it is.... 

A) It's that the government is supposed to provide services that do not exist because they do not generate profits for the private companies or fields we deem shouldn't be done for profit.

The main point of unions is to make sure that the workers get a fair share of their employers profits and benefits for the work they do that has facilitated said success.  Hence why your union employees at GM (during there heyday) would make more then say Chrystler employees doing the same jobs elsewhere etc.   It's the exact same work, but Chrystler employees made less then GM because GM was more profitable. (and vice versa.)

Additonally, government jobs (should) be jobs that are needed and need to be filled fast.  Which means compensation should be quite good.  Heck, I worked for the US Census and made $15 an hour, and got gas money... often times just to sit around and do nothing.  There was no union and there were TONS of people i know who never made it on even though they applied.

In the private sector your lucky if they'll pay you 4 bucks an hour + commission, with most people never making even min wage.

B)  Government employees have a much stronger position to negogtiate from.  They aren't profit based so it's a lot easier to get a raise... it's not like a corporation where you have to fight for it.  Hell, even in areas where there is no government union i BELIEVE that pay raises and the like are built in via seniority.  State employees ESPIECALLY have a big pull because they're an important voting block.

It's why we slide into government spending so much in the first place.  A minority who directly benefits is much more powerful then a majority minorly inconveinced and not really paying attention.

It's not your bosses money and your boss isn't judged on that money more often then not.  Even in the case of "rampant government overspending" in politics it's almost never specifics except when someone is taking clear advantage of the system.

C) There is no alternative to government.  Even if you put your kids in a private school you are paying that public teacher's salary, and there isn't anything you can do about it.  If employees pay their employees too much to where it hurts the average person, they'll just shop elsewhere.  When it comes to the government, change is only made after heavy damage already happens because it takes a lot of work.

D) Goverment jobs are called "Civil Service" honestly they should be looked at more as a duty then a job.  Like the Military or a charity.

I don't get the free market dualism of Walker's (and conservatives in general) argument. I really dislike unions 90% of the time. They're a monopoly on labor. But, on the other hand, how can a person tout "free market capitalism" while removing the rights of an organization to negotiate their own pay? Because they work for the government?

No, man. No. That's hypocritical. People deserve the right to negotiate how much pay they receive in the workplace. You don't get to trample their rights just because they're a "civil servant". There should be no exceptions to this rule because you "don't like their job" or "think they're paid too much".

You're either free market or you're not. In a free market, people are allowed to negotiate. The quality of government workers is already bad enough. What we should be looking at is removing tenure, ability to fire employees, and shaking up how quickly bad employees can be removed from the system. We shouldn't take away their ability to get good employees in the first place. That will just lead to more inefficiency and corruption because the government will be full of even more lazy, incompetent jackasses.

Well, most free-market guys have no problem with unions, per se. It's the places well unions get extra power through legislation that causes the problem.

Private business owners are allowed to crack down or fight the power of the union if they deem the union to be taking the piss, why can't the public sector employers? Okay, there is a difference between the strong-ball negotiations that private employers must use, versus the power of legislation that public employers can deploy. However, public unions do get the benefit of legislation to their advantage (private unions must keep costs to a pioint where the employer can maintain profitability, public unions can just demand that they raise taxes).